'Freedom of thought has become a shield for symbolic violence'

Inconsistency between Islam and modernity is growing. The distinction between geography and history is being eroded.

In a book published in English in 2010 -- "Islam in Europe: The Lure of
Fundamentalism and the Allure of Cosmopolitanism” – Professor Nilüfer
Göle showed by reliance on the notion of "interpenetrations” between
beliefs and cultures that counter-readings and analyses are necessary.

Göle’s approach is, of course, a hard road to travel. It requires
empathy with different worlds of meaning. But there is a synchronic
relationship between Islam and modernity, from a proximate perspective.
In order to better understand the process of mutual engagement or
"interpenetration,” it is necessary to perform a multilayered reading
and see the manifestations of synchronization. Merely taking a look is
not sufficient.

We observe unexpected encounters in the social world. We also observe
the harmonization of phenomena that seem to be irreconcilable. We need
theory, depiction and analysis in this era of interpenetrations and
encounters; otherwise abstract, absolute and purely discursive ideas
remain unsupported.

Göle is in search of a comprehensive analysis of these tough and
complicated processes. In an interview with Sunday’s Zaman, she offered
an insight on her interpretations.

According to the renowned professor, violent protests sparked by an
anti-Islam movie, the "Innocence of Muslims,” is another example of the
interpenetration between the Western world and Islam. While violence is
justified in the course of protests in the Muslim world, in the West,
the concept of freedom of thought has become the justification for
symbolic violence.

Excerpts from the interview with Göle are as follows:

Compared to the Islam we observed in the 1990s in Turkey, does the Islam
we observe in Europe make you feel "déjà vu”? Or is the tension between
the secular and the religious stronger?

What happened in Europe with reference to Islam could be considered déjà
vu, a previously staged film scenario, if you look at it from Turkey’s
perspective. The discussions on headscarves and the republic are similar
to the discussions that have taken place in France over the past two
decades. There is also similarity between terminologies. However, a
"European Islam” is also emerging. The place of Islam in the lives of
Muslims and its manifestations display many European characteristics.
From Turkey’s perspective, all Muslims may look the same. Compared to
Europe, the way the people experience Islam in Turkey appears to be
homogenous in terms of language and nationality.

Secondly, despite the current and historical dynamics of secularization,
Islam is experienced in a natural style in Turkey. On the other hand,
matters that we do not see as problems in Turkey have become sources of
controversy in Europe, including the minarets of the mosques, halal meat
and even the cultural and political discussions on circumcision. Islam
in Europe does not refer to the natural course of a river shaped by
traditions and religious rituals over centuries. As migrants expend
efforts to make a new home and become familiar with a new environment,
Islam is also settling in a new cultural basin and geography.

Thirdly, in European Islam the linkage between nationality and religion
is weakening. It is disappearing with the new generations. Muslims get
new citizenship in different nations of Europe and create a distinctive
minority and community shaped by different ethnic origins and historical
courses. Their Muslim identity serves as an umbrella, bonding them
together. In short, the climate in which Muslims practice their faith in
Europe is extremely different. Moroccan, Turkish, Algerian and
Pakistani Muslims explore their various prayer practices and cultural
customs in the same continent, and sometimes in the same neighborhoods.
Whether they use the same mosques, the language in which the sermons are
delivered, to whom their daughters get married and other social
questions become part of the daily lives of Muslims.

Many Europeans discover the differences among Muslims and therefore
experience the cosmopolitan Islam. In conclusion, new questions peculiar
to European Islam or Muslims in Europe emerge. While it is still
influential over Muslims, Middle Eastern Islam is no longer the dominant
form. There are now many new Islamic thinkers, scholars and theologians
who raise these issues and are able to understand the demands of
European Muslims.

It has been assumed that the two identities, modern and Muslim, were
distinct. However, they are transforming in the process of
interpenetration, as you define it, in the micro-power relationship.
This process is pretty painful for both sides. What are the advantages
and benefits of this process?

In our focus on the clash between Europe and Islam today, we need to
take a look at religion in the subjective life of Muslims and understand
the tensions in their inner worlds and how they question life. The
interaction and penetration between the secular and the religious is
part of the daily lives of Muslims. We cannot take Islam as an
unchangeable category. We cannot reduce it to the religion section on
our ID cards. Muslims are trying to experience Islam and traditions in
Europe in an environment where their comfort, based on the usual
rituals, is disturbed. We are talking about an Islam that is less
natural, taking place in front of the non-Muslim majority and gaining
new meanings. As Muslims settle in Europe and practice their religion
more eagerly, they make Islam more apparent in the public sphere and,
knowingly or unknowingly, they violate some rules.

The clash is taking place mutually. Muslims make their identity visible
and religious and cultural diversities appear by pushing the limits.
They take part in the secular life, where their religious symbols are
not desired. However, in this process, symbols of religiosity and prayer
take on new meanings. Europeans, on the other hand, rely on additional
legislation to deal with these violations and restrict the limits of the
public sphere, i.e., restrict the democracy. In the end, I believe that
they restrict the potential of the public sphere by legal and
legislative means.

Some analysts present Islamism as an opponent to Western modernity as if
it were a social remedy to all problems, like socialism. In this
system, they also refer to inconsistency between Islam and modernity,
and the secularists do the same. Could we talk about the pragmatism of
dual readings? Can we think of Islam as a given phenomenon in terms of
its social manifestations?

The linkage between the narrative of modernity and secularism has been
extensively questioned. In addition, the courses of secularism
manifested outside the West have been noticed. Today, the secularism
discussions are enriched by the pluralist secularism in India and the
anti-colonialist pacifist Gandhi resistance. The comments on Islamic
secularism are also included in these discussions. For this reason, the
dualist readings, like Western secular modernity and the rest, are no
longer valid. They only represent intellectual laziness or breed
ideologies. Today, we cannot speak of single-centered modernity, and we
also observe the weakness of the narrative of hegemonic secular
modernity. The narratives requiring choice between this and that ignore
the interactions and interpenetrations between the secular and the
religious.

You believe that progress towards unique difference depends on
encounter, inclusion, penetration and permeation. Instead of external
transformation and inspection of theories from a distance, you are in
search of analyzing things from within. How do you respond to those who
see your depictions or analyses as integration or joining with the
modern?

Transcending the modern, relying on a golden age of the past or an
idealized future, the desire to change the present -- all alternative
movements want to achieve these. However, the course of social life does
not overlap with people’s ideals. What I am trying to depict and what I
analyze is the tension between these ideals and the praxis, the
betrayals, the destructions and the unexpected outcomes. Islam has
entered the turbulence of modern times; and it has even become the
subject of this turbulence.

For some, submission to modernity refers to indifference to religion;
for some, it means consolidation of religion and its promotion through
the power of authority and money. Some Muslims spoil themselves with the
attractions of the modern world, but even those who do this do not only
integrate or articulate themselves with the modern but also open up
modernity to different cultural basins by offering goods for
consumption, places, spaces and fashions to religious people. I could
formulate the question that is embedded in my studies and works as
follows: Could a critical stance or faith create a modern world that is
not defeated by market rules and power relations, without becoming
corrupted by modern times and seduced by its appealing offers? In my all
analyses and depictions, I question the creative, transformative
potential and power as well as its ability to raise the standards of
civilization.

Some violent protests were staged in response to a provocative
anti-Islam film, "Innocence of Muslims.” The American envoy to Libya was
killed. Some protestors were shot by the police. Will hatred against
Muslims become determinative in the future of Islam and of Europe? What
are your observations and intuitions on this matter? The cartoons in
Denmark and now this movie -- do you see any correlation between these
incidents? Do we see the same film all the time?

This is another example of the interpenetration between the Western
world and Islam, of the violence that this proximity has created and of
the violation of the boundaries. There is a film seeking to violate the
sanctity of a religion, and there is also a state of violence that
violates the sanctity of human life. The clash has spread from Europe to
the US. There is a past in this matter: discussions over a ground zero
mosque, the attempt by a pastor in Florida to burn the Quran, a
referendum campaign to ban sharia in American states to protect against
fictive sharia demands and offensive references to Obama’s middle name.
All these are examples suggesting that opposition to Islam has been
spread in the US as well.

As it leaves the interpenetration with Islam and the test of coexistence
for the monopoly of enemies of Islam, the Western world is getting away
from rationality and aesthetic criteria. The notion of Islamophobia
reflects this and speaks to the most basic and most primitive world of
emotions and fears of a mankind deprived of rationality. All agree that
this recent film is provocative and holds vicious intentions. But people
also ask this question: Why is the Islamic world unable to ignore this
provocation? Why are they so angry, and why do they express their
emotions so primitively and violently?

Neither of these two distinct reactions can be entirely attributed to
the Western world or Islam and the Muslims. But these reactions present
the pathological symptoms of the encounter between these two worlds. The
film uses the freedom of expression as a tool, and against it violence
is justified by the sanctity of the religion. The Islamic world condemns
violence -- yet it ignores the presence of violence and the barbarity
in this state of violence. Some minority movements, like salafi
jihadists, who are not considered a proper representative of Islam, try
to take the Arab Spring under their control and intimidate their fellow
citizens by resorting to violence.

On the other hand, the concept of freedom of thought has become the
justification for symbolic violence. The Western world has to redefine
the principle of freedom of thought and make sure that it is not used as
part of its hegemonic domination. But this is not easy, because the
prerequisites of freedom of thought, the scientific and aesthetic
criteria, have been eroded. It is possible to express every view, say
everything in social media. The people prefer visual, simple
explanations rather than stimulating ideas. The value of freedom of
thought is not the ability to say everything; freedom of thought can
offer results in an environment where knowledge and aesthetic criteria
are preserved. Only then can it raise the bar for civilization.

In short, in order to make sure that the encounter between Islam and the
Western world moves forward down a violence-free path, they have to
rely on a new style of communication, interaction and penetration when
they violate the boundaries, meet each other’s sacred symbols and values
and test the tolerance threshold. I believe that Muslims cannot
contribute to this process by trying to adapt to modern politics. Some
traditional values and principles referring to the wisdom of remaining
silent may offer a new style in politics. The activism of modern
politics and its supremacy, which transforms freedom into arrogance, as
well as its reactionary style, provoke further clashes and conflicts.